Is CT not using pipe gantries anymore?

[Mergingtraffic]

Look at the plans, here the new overhead support gantries are not pipes.  I liked the piping design, very Utah-ish.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=24139

[KEVIN_224]

I've seen a few new installations as of late:

1- Exit 47 from I-91 North in New Haven for the new CT Route 34 flyover ramp.
2- Just after Exit 48 from I-84/US 6 West in Hartford for the upcoming Sigourney Street and Sisson Avenue exits.

[relaxok]

One can only hope.

[Henry]

Look at the plans, here the new overhead support gantries are not pipes.  I liked the piping design, very Utah-ish.

I agree, they are unique, and give the highway character. Kind of like the ones that used to exist on I-95 approaching Washington, before they were removed a few years ago.

[roadman]

Look at the plans, here the new overhead support gantries are not pipes.  I liked the piping design, very Utah-ish.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=24139

Based on my read of the specifications, it appears to me that the intent of this contract is for the "in-kind" replacement of the existing type of structure at each location (i.e. replace old box truss with new box truss, etc.), and is not intended to establish a new uniform design standard for CT overhead sign structures.  I presume this was done so the existing foundations and anchor bolts can be re-used for the new structures.

If you look at the plans, you'll notice that at least one location calls for replacing an existing "pipe" design support with a new one.

[Mergingtraffic]

Look at the plans, here the new overhead support gantries are not pipes.  I liked the piping design, very Utah-ish.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=24139

Based on my read of the specifications, it appears to me that the intent of this contract is for the "in-kind" replacement of the existing type of structure at each location (i.e. replace old box truss with new box truss, etc.), and is not intended to establish a new uniform design standard for CT overhead sign structures.  I presume this was done so the existing foundations and anchor bolts can be re-used for the new structures.

If you look at the plans, you'll notice that at least one location calls for replacing an existing "pipe" design support with a new one.

I did notice the one pipe design.  But, I also noticed during the new I-95 Exit 14-15 lane addition project, it's the same thing, no pipe gantries.
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=24062

[roadman]

I did notice the one pipe design.  But, I also noticed during the new I-95 Exit 14-15 lane addition project, it's the same thing, no pipe gantries.
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/scp_search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=24062

Thanks for the clarification.  My best guess is that the older 'pipe' design wasn't considered for the I-95 aux lane project because of the span lengths for the new 'double panel' cantilever design (about 45 feet, if I did the conversion correctly - and why is CT STILL letting projects in metric units, MassDOT and other states gave that up a few years ago.).

Personally, I have never liked 'pipe' design overhead sign supports.  While they may have some appeal due to their 'slim' visual appearance, unlike a 'four post' box truss or trichord, they offer no redundancy should the panel get hit.  And most fabricators and installers will tell you that, compared to a standard truss, attaching signs to them can be a real PIA.

As an aside - who came up with 'Next Right' and 'Second Right' for mainline advance signs on a high speed interstate?  If you're going to do that for emphasis, at least put the legends in black on yellow banners.

[Mergingtraffic]

As an aside - who came up with 'Next Right' and 'Second Right' for mainline advance signs on a high speed interstate?  If you're going to do that for emphasis, at least put the legends in black on yellow banners.

There are a pair of BGSs with this on CT-9 SB by I-91 and they have the FIRST RIGHT & SECOND RIGHT with black on yellow.  As you can CT is not consistant at all!

Also with lack of consistancy, on I-84 EB by Exit 34 they put up a big 50mph curve BYS (big yellow sign) on the overhead gantry.  However, there are other sharper curves that don't have this.  And, new signing projects that contain sharp curves in the project area that don't have them either.  I-84 EB in Danbury just past Exit 3 comes to mind.  NO plans for a BYS curve sign there either. 

[KEVIN_224]

I was about to mention that the big sign in Plainville probably went up, due to the merge of CT Route 72 East on the left after that exit. I know that US Route 7 North merges in with I-84 on the right side in Danbury. However, there's still the weave to get over for anybody wanting access to US Routes 6 and 202 West at Exit 4.

[roadman]

There are a pair of BGSs with this on CT-9 SB by I-91 and they have the FIRST RIGHT & SECOND RIGHT with black on yellow.  As you can CT is not consistant at all!

Also with lack of consistancy, on I-84 EB by Exit 34 they put up a big 50mph curve BYS (big yellow sign) on the overhead gantry.  However, there are other sharper curves that don't have this.  And, new signing projects that contain sharp curves in the project area that don't have them either.  I-84 EB in Danbury just past Exit 3 comes to mind.  NO plans for a BYS curve sign there either. 

As the saying goes, that's the nice thing about standards - there are so many to choose from.

Seriously though, having driven through CT on both I-84 and I-91 on a regular basis for the past thirty years, I've gotten the impression that while CT changes out their panels every so often (though not as frequently as MA does), they are generally reluctant to replace the sign support structures as well unless they absolutely need to (by contrast, MA usually replaces the structures every other time the panels are replaced).

This practice would explain the lack of new OH curve warning signs at the locations you mentioned.  Adding additional large extruded signs to structures not specifically designed to accommodate the extra loading is a risky proposition and is generally avoided by most signing engineers.